View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
deadimp
Joined: 22 Oct 2008 Posts: 28
|
Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 12:19 am Post subject: Plans for D2.0 |
|
|
I know this is jumping the gun since it's already been stated the arclib is maintenance mode, but what plans are there for moving to D2.0?
Obviously, this would be done once tango and derelict have solidified their own implementations for this version. But the question is, is there already a plan? Or will it be more of a spur-of-the-moment thing?
Can anyone make a prediction, far-fetched at best?
And is there a way these steps can be made? For example, bridging the code from D1.0 to D2.0 while remaining in D1.0 - the main thing being strings as invariant(char)[]'s.
Since the tango community is still debating on whether or not string aliases should be defined, should it or something like this be included to make the transition (and typing) easier?
I'm just posting this to get the thought out there. I don't think it will cause any stir for movement right now.
Sorry if my writing seems a bit screwed up... Must get sleep. _________________ deadimp.org
> MegaMan X Crossfire - MegaMan X fan game
Beginning D; Basic experience in PHP, C++, Java, C#, MySQL, HTML, CSS, JavaScript, VB |
|
Back to top |
|
|
clayasaurus
Joined: 21 May 2004 Posts: 857
|
Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 9:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't really want to deal with D 2.0 until it is stabilized and Walter starts working on D 3.0.
Actually, I'm wondering if I should keep ArcLib on D 1.0, so I could compile it with LLVMDC.
Are there any D 2.0 features you would like to use? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
deadimp
Joined: 22 Oct 2008 Posts: 28
|
Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 5:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't need any "extreme" features that D1.0 doesn't already have. I understand waiting until D2.0 has levelled out.
I guess the perception I've been dealing with is that sticking to D1.0 means dealing with issues of legacy code and some sort of backwards compatibility - the pattern that D sought to break from in contrast with C++. Of course, this idea doesn't really make that much sense when put into the development perspective, and maybe I misinterpreted Walter's goals... My writing / reasoning skills have gone to suck recently...
The main thing that worries me is the transition of how strings are handled - something that might cause the largest bump in the road later on.
I guess I'm asking: Is there a strategy or some sort of simple, compact, and transparent design pattern to make it compatibile with D1.0 and D2.0 style strings? Or should the change be made when the change comes?
[Yeah... I guess another English class wouldn't hurt ] _________________ deadimp.org
> MegaMan X Crossfire - MegaMan X fan game
Beginning D; Basic experience in PHP, C++, Java, C#, MySQL, HTML, CSS, JavaScript, VB |
|
Back to top |
|
|
clayasaurus
Joined: 21 May 2004 Posts: 857
|
Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 2:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The reason I want to stick with D 1.0 is because it is a stable language.
If I were to choose D 2.0, I may end up re-writing large parts of ArcLib's code on a monthly basis.
I won't really start looking at D 2.0 until it becomes a stable language. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|